The origin of Dark Energy

[Sputnick]

Okay - what is theorized as Dark Energy is theorized as being responsible for the acceleration of the expansion of the universe.

As astronomical bodies separate could a 'stretching' of their co-joined gravitational forces actually create energy? Primitive example: stretch a rubber band and it creates heat.

Gravity on a small scale, within a solar system for example, will attempt to keep the bodies from flying apart - this appears to be gravity's 'job'. However - perhaps on a vaster scale like the distance between galactic walls gravity has another job - that of creating energy to assist in separation of bodies which are beyond gravity's ability to unite .. (or beyond nature's plan for itself .. all of nature assisting itself in its purposes .. and what good are walls if they are only to attract themselves to each other?) If gravity 'stretches' does it create tension in itself (as in a stretched rubber band) and will that tension (which I understand if found in a rubber band is energy) free itself from gravity at the appropriate time, transforming into Dark Energy which fills the space in which gravity once dominated(?)

I suppose part of my rubberized musings result from reading of 'The Big Bounce' - one of the more recent theories to explain away some of the missing theoretical elements supporting the Big Bang. I also see a need for 'something' to cause the 'desire' for galactic bodies on the vast scale to separate - and wonder whatever happened to the idea of 'the Great Attracter" which is believed by some to lie outside of the universe.

To summarize though - I just have a sense that the breaking of gravitational bonds creates energy .. and propose that to be the origin of Dark Energy.

[Chris Peterson]

To summarize though - I just have a sense that the breaking of gravitational bonds creates energy .. and propose that to be the origin of Dark Energy.

How would you test this? Unless you or somebody else can propose a way to do so, this is outside the bounds of science. Can you frame it in mathematical terms (the language of science) so there is even something to work with, so that observations can be compared to your "theory"?

In the context of well established scientific theory, what does "breaking gravitational bonds" mean? I've never seen anything to suggest such a thing is possible: the gravitational force becomes smaller with distance, but never becomes zero.

BTW, your analogy with the rubber band is not imperfect. But it needs to be stated differently. Stretching a rubber band does not create energy. When you stretch the rubber band, mechanical energy is converted to heat. Similarly, when you pull two masses apart, heat will be generated. The total energy of either system is conserved, however.

[Sputnick]

Chris - not that you need to be concerned over my opinion of your posts, but your latest post carries a temperate spirit which I see as improvement. I enjoyed reading it.

I never said stretching a rubber band creates energy - I said it creates heat .. but first I had said stretching the bonds of gravity to the breaking point might create energy, so your error was not without cause. You say that
gravitational force never becomes zero? Do you mean to say that a planet on one end of the universe feels the gravity of a planet on the other end? That would be a real stretch.

How would I test my idea? I have no idea. I'll leave that up to mathematicians and particle physicists. I'm just a part time janitor who reads a lot and who has always said my ideas come mostly from intuition and imagination inspired by observation of nature and by what I read.

Your statement "outside the realm of science" is not in my opinion accurate .. according to Webster's dictionary science includes hypotheses - (ideas) and observation .. it says nothing about a hypotheses having to be testable. If you give me a 'scientific definition' which says a hypotheses must be testable to be science, I will say, 'okay, a hypotheses may not be testable with present technology, but that hypotheses may be or will be testable with advanced technology' .. does this place the hypotheses outside of science, or does it require science to catch up to the hypotheses? When we begin to slice the meaning of words into finer and finer requirements all we really do is dice our brains .. create strife .. create confusion.

[Chris Peterson]

You say that gravitational force never becomes zero? Do you mean to say that a planet on one end of the universe feels the gravity of a planet on the other end?

I do say that the gravitational force between two objects never becomes zero. That's not quite the same as saying there are objects that do not influence each other gravitationally. Theory and observation tell us that gravity, like other fields, is limited by the speed of light. So objects that are not causally connected do not influence each other. But in that case, no "bond" was broken. So I'd say that any objects that have been gravitationally bound will continue to be so, regardless of distance. I see no way to reduce an existing gravitational force to zero.

How would I test my idea? I have no idea. I'll leave that up to mathematicians and particle physicists.

Well, that's the problem. Because without a more rigorous statement of the hypothesis, and one or more possible tests, there's simply no way to assess how reasonable your idea is. I could say that dark energy is produced by invisible purple unicorns after they eat jellybeans, and that has exactly the same merit. There is no way to say that one or the other suggestion is better or worse. Actually, I could make the unicorn theory better by proposing a test: estimate the total mass of all the jellybeans ever produced, use energy-mass equivalence to compare the observed magnitude of dark energy to jellybean energy, and thereby determine if the two could be related. And even if that test argued against the unicorn theory, it would still be a better theory. An incorrect theory is still better than a theory that can't even be tested well enough to know.

Your statement "outside the realm of science" is not in my opinion accurate .. according to Webster's dictionary science includes hypotheses - (ideas) and observation .. it says nothing about a hypotheses having to be testable.

In my opinion, that definition is incomplete, and not relevant to this forum. An ordinary dictionary lists a variety of meanings for "science", and not all are applicable here. Certainly, science can refer to a body of knowledge, and we discuss it that way sometimes. But more to the point, science is a system of analyzing natural processes, and relies upon the scientific method. While there are a variety of different opinions on just what constitutes the "scientific method", I've never seen a suggestion that it doesn't involve some sort of feedback where observations are compared with predictions. A theory (or hypothesis) has no value if it isn't predictive of something that we can observe. A test is just a practical expression of that.

If you give me a 'scientific definition' which says a hypotheses must be testable to be science, I will say, 'okay, a hypotheses may not be testable with present technology, but that hypotheses may be or will be testable with advanced technology' .. does this place the hypotheses outside of science, or does it require science to catch up to the hypotheses?

It is not uncommon for tests to be proposed which are outside of current technology. The existence of such tests is a factor that actually drives technology. A major goal of the LHC is to test some major components of the Standard Model. The important thing is, the theory had already proposed tests, long before they could be practically conducted.

I wasn't asking you for a test of your hypothesis that was necessary possible today. But I do think when you propose something like you did, you need to be able to say (1) what your hypothesis predicts, and (2) how could that be tested.

When we begin to slice the meaning of words into finer and finer requirements all we really do is dice our brains .. create strife .. create confusion.

I disagree completely. There is a reason that scientific standards organizations argue over and eventually arrive at very narrow definitions of words. It is because the more narrowly we define things, the less chance there is for confusion.

[astrolabe]

Hi Sputnick and Chris,

The word theory by both of you is a little loose? My understanding is there is no Theory of Dark Energy or, for that matter, any theorizing about it at all. No assumptions, no guess work, hypotheses maybe, conjecture, or some speculation but until a firm IDEA of what it could be is presented, then, and only then, can how to test be determined. Seems like a long way from theory to me. And, Chris, honestly! Unicorn theory?

The firs one to come up with a valid reason for such blatant carelessness will win this 3/4 sized astronomer's desk with starchart ink blotter and made from a genuine simulated walnut wood-toned product. The runnerup will have to suffer with the oak toned one.

Seriously though, I know you know the difference but others may not and then the misuse of the word and meaning of "theory" creates threads containing missed communication of ideas and it takes paragraphs to accomplish the goal of a forum: the clear and precise formation of an idea for discussion. This is a difficult thing for me too but sometimes the anwers are truly worth the effort of choosing the correct terms and reading posts carefully.

By the way I certainly understood the points gendered by each of you pretty well- interesting ideas. Whodathunk, a univerds held together by rubber bands, I somehow don't think "the bounce" is more than a hypothesis that needs proving in all the aspects of astronomy. Valid? Not at this time perhaps. Maybe never. Maybe someday.

[Chris Peterson]

The word theory by both of you is a little loose? My understanding is there is no Theory of Dark Energy or, for that matter, any theorizing about it at all. No assumptions, no guess work, hypotheses maybe, conjecture, or some speculation but until a firm IDEA of what it could be is presented, then, and only then, can how to test be determined.

Not so. Dark energy fits firmly into the standard cosmology model, and its variations. It is most commonly treated as the cosmological constant term, but alternatively as a kind of vacuum energy predicted by QM. This goes beyond speculation, because the actual explanation, and the precise value, are closely related to spatial curvature. This is something that is experimentally measurable. There was a proposed space mission to do just that, but it has since been dropped due to budget constraints. Nevertheless, it is measurable and will certainly be measured in the not too distant future. (Actually, it has been measured, but it needs to be measured to higher precision to narrow down the theoretical possibilities.) The result will be a refined standard model. That's only one example. There are other measurable quantities that can refine the theories of dark energy, such as higher resolution imagery of the CMB.

It is absolutely fair to say that the standard cosmological model is a work in process, with a lot of holes that still need to be filled in (and likewise for other cosmological theories). And it is fair to say that the actual nature of dark energy remains quite speculative. But we do have several solid observations that require explanation, and several good theories of dark energy that do just that. I'd say that the astronomical community has a pretty high level of confidence that dark energy is real, but no solid consensus yet that any theory is well enough supported to accept with high confidence. But a good theory doesn't stop being good just because it hasn't been well tested; it only stops being good when it seems to be untestable. That doesn't describe current theories of dark energy.

[harry]

G'day from the land of ozzzz

This is quite interesting paper

http://arxiv.org/abs/0810.0153
Expanding Space: The Root of Conceptual Problems of the Cosmological Physics

Authors: Yu. V. Baryshev (Astron.Inst.St.-Petersburg Univ.)
(Submitted on 1 Oct 2008)

Abstract: The space expansion physics contains several paradoxes which were clearly demonstrated by Edward Harrison (1981, 1995, 2000), who emphasized that the cooling of homogeneous hot gas (including photon gas of CBR) in the standard cosmological model based on the violation of energy conservation by the expanding space. In modern version of SCM the term "space expansion" actually means continuous creation of vacuum, something that leads to conceptual problems. Recent discussion by Francis, Barnes, James, and Lewis (2007) on the physical sense of the increasing distance to a receding galaxy without motion of the galaxy is just a particular consequence of the arising paradoxes. Here we present an analysis of the following conceptual problems of the SCM: the violation of energy conservation for local comoving volumes, the exact Newtonian form of the Friedmann equation, the absence of an upper limit on the receding velocity of galaxies which can be greater than the speed of light, and the presence of the linear Hubble law deeply inside inhomogeneous galaxy distribution. The common cause of these paradoxes is the geometrical description of gravity, where there is no a well defined concept of the energy-momentum tensor for the gravitational field, no energy quanta - gravitons, and no energy-momentum conservation for matter plus gravity because gravity is not a material field.

[Nereid]

[...]

I suppose part of my rubberized musings result from reading of 'The Big Bounce' - one of the more recent theories to explain away some of the missing theoretical elements supporting the Big Bang. I also see a need for 'something' to cause the 'desire' for galactic bodies on the vast scale to separate - and wonder whatever happened to the idea of 'the Great Attracter" which is believed by some to lie outside of the universe.

Chris P has already commented on much of this; I'd like to add that it seems you may have misunderstood 'the Great Attractor', or reports about a recent paper or two by Kashlinsky et al. (or both).

If you're interested in getting a better understanding of these, asking questions in BAUT's Q&A section could be productive (I think Physics Forums' astronomy and cosmology section is too advanced for your current grasp of physics).

To summarize though - I just have a sense that the breaking of gravitational bonds creates energy .. and propose that to be the origin of Dark Energy.

Why not take the trouble to develop this idea to the point where you can write it up as a paper, for submission to a relevant peer-reviewed journal?

Until it's developed to that point, it's not within the scope of this forum, don't you think?

[Sputnick]

Highly Recommended reading especially for Chris and Nereid - 'Through a Universe Darkly' by Physicist Marcia Bartusiak - includes:

Celia Payne who was told by 'the establishment' that her calculations showing Hydrogen was the vastly predominant element in the universe were in error - the person who told her that (her 'Superior') going on to claim the glory of the discovery for himself - her discovery "allowing physicists to pursue at last the mechanisms of stellar power." P. XV Prologue

"Meanwhile, molecules of carbon monoxide, once thought impossible to assemble in space, disclose the existance of immense clouds of gas that serves as our galaxy's most prolific stellar nurseries." PXIV Prologue.

"In 15423 the Polish churchman Mikolai Kopernik (Copernicus) set the planets in motion around the sun." Owen Gingerich of Harvard University wrote, "Copernicus' radical cosmology came froth not from new observations, but from insight." P.22

"Witness Galileo's famous trial and house arrest for his claim that the truth of physical reality can be sought in nature." P.23

"For over a quarter of a century after its discovery and naming by J. Norman Lockyer helium remained a mere hypothetical gas" because of disbelief and jealousy among the establishment. Page 72.

Is Philosophy science? Island Universes was "a concept contemplated by the great German Philosopher Immanuel Kant as early as the 1700s" confirmed of course only in the 1920s. Page 125

Meghnad Saha's paper 'Ionization in the solar chromosphere' was rejected by The Astrophysical Journal, but was published by the Philosophical Magazine - "some historians mark the beginning of modern astrophysics with the publication of Saha's ionization theory.'
Page 99

There are many other examples so far in the first third of the book I read last night; but I think, Chris and Nereid, these few examples from that wonderful book reveal that you have forgotten the basics of science .. the foundations of scientific thinking .. and have replaced them with dogma, establishment authority, and in Chris's appearance of possessing knowledge.

[Nereid]

Highly Recommended reading especially for Chris and Nereid - 'Through a Universe Darkly' by Physicist Marcia Bartusiak - includes:

Celia Payne who was told by 'the establishment' that her calculations showing Hydrogen was the vastly predominant element in the universe were in error - the person who told her that (her 'Superior') going on to claim the glory of the discovery for himself - her discovery "allowing physicists to pursue at last the mechanisms of stellar power." P. XV Prologue

"Meanwhile, molecules of carbon monoxide, once thought impossible to assemble in space, disclose the existance of immense clouds of gas that serves as our galaxy's most prolific stellar nurseries." PXIV Prologue.

"In 15423 the Polish churchman Mikolai Kopernik (Copernicus) set the planets in motion around the sun." Owen Gingerich of Harvard University wrote, "Copernicus' radical cosmology came froth not from new observations, but from insight." P.22

"Witness Galileo's famous trial and house arrest for his claim that the truth of physical reality can be sought in nature." P.23

"For over a quarter of a century after its discovery and naming by J. Norman Lockyer helium remained a mere hypothetical gas" because of disbelief and jealousy among the establishment. Page 72.

Is Philosophy science? Island Universes was "a concept contemplated by the great German Philosopher Immanuel Kant as early as the 1700s" confirmed of course only in the 1920s. Page 125

Meghnad Saha's paper 'Ionization in the solar chromosphere' was rejected by The Astrophysical Journal, but was published by the Philosophical Magazine - "some historians mark the beginning of modern astrophysics with the publication of Saha's ionization theory.'
Page 99

There are many other examples so far in the first third of the book I read last night; but I think, Chris and Nereid, these few examples from that wonderful book reveal that you have forgotten the basics of science .. the foundations of scientific thinking .. and have replaced them with dogma, establishment authority, and in Chris's appearance of possessing knowledge.

What does this have to do with Dark Energy, Sputnick?

The history of astronomy is indeed a fascinating topic!

However, I think it's a bit of a stretch from some examples plucked from a book on the history of astronomy to "you [Chris and Nereid] have forgotten the basics of science .. the foundations of scientific thinking .. and have replaced them with dogma, establishment authority, and in Chris's appearance of possessing knowledge". In fact, that looks awfully like a personal attack, don't you think?

In any case, how many books could be written, in the style of Bartusiak, filled with nothing but examples of the other kind? And in (deliberately?) neglecting to mention the many thousands of examples not in Bartusiak's book, aren't you yourself forgetting the basics of science, the foundations of scientific thinking? How about formulating an hypothesis or three, about the development of ideas in modern astronomy, and testing them?

[Chris Peterson]

Highly Recommended reading especially for Chris and Nereid - 'Through a Universe Darkly' by Physicist Marcia Bartusiak - includes:

Celia Payne who was told by 'the establishment' that her calculations showing Hydrogen was the vastly predominant element in the universe were in error - the person who told her that (her 'Superior') going on to claim the glory of the discovery for himself - her discovery "allowing physicists to pursue at last the mechanisms of stellar power."...

As I noted elsewhere, it is common for new ideas to be rejected. Common, and good. Because it forces the people introducing the ideas to defend them vigorously. Without such a filtering mechanism, it would be difficult to get anything done. And typically, the farther a new theory deviates from the current beliefs, the more work it will be to shift those beliefs.

It is important to realize that the process of expanding scientific knowledge (but not science itself) is competitive. Without competition, it wouldn't really work.

All the ideas you list that were initially rejected, were, in fact, ultimately accepted. Again, that's because their proponents worked within the system (affiliations with respected institutions, peer-reviewed publications in respected journals, theories backed by high quality observations). I would argue that your comments and examples show that the process of science works, not that it fails.

[Sputnick]

It is important to realize that the process of expanding scientific knowledge (but not science itself) is competitive. Without competition, it wouldn't really work.

Did you ever watch Sesame Street Chris? Co-operation works far better than competition .. because competition creates jealousy and anger by the losers towards the winners .. jealousy and anger create denial of truth, and that creates an end to competition because often the losers are in the concensus, the concensus being the large tribe with the big 'clubs' both organizational and high in impact when a head is struck by one.

All the ideas you list that were initially rejected, were, in fact, ultimately accepted. Again, that's because their proponents worked within the system (affiliations with respected institutions, peer-reviewed publications in respected journals, theories backed by high quality observations). I would argue that your comments and examples show that the process of science works, not that it fails.

Yes - truth is almost always utimately accepted, but sometimes it takes decades or centuries or mileunium for acceptance .. time wasted because the concensus declares the truth to be untruth.

[Chris Peterson]

Did you ever watch Sesame Street Chris? Co-operation works far better than competition

It works better for some things. But not all. Can you imagine how exciting a soccer game would be if all the players cooperated? In fact, what makes the game work is that you have two competing teams consisting of cooperating players. With respect to areas of science that are still under development, it is the same. Scientists align themselves cooperatively with factions having competing viewpoints. The result? Knowledge advances at a far greater pace than it ever could if everybody cooperated. We regularly see important contributions to science, math, and technology produced by the deliberate creation of competitions.

... because competition creates jealousy and anger by the losers towards the winners...

Anger is very rare, as is strong jealousy. Some mild jealousy, of course, is human nature. It serves a valuable purpose as a motivator. We all take pleasure in having our viewpoints validated. It is a rare scientist who hasn't had is ideas demonstrated wrong by another scientist. But there aren't a lot of bitter angry scientists running around.

Yes - truth is almost always utimately accepted, but sometimes it takes decades or centuries or mileunium for acceptance .. time wasted because the concensus declares the truth to be untruth.

I'm considering modern science here- something that really only dates back a few hundred years. Within this rational framework, good ideas rarely take long to be accepted. I can't think of any "wrong" scientific theory that lasted decades after the "right" theory was proposed. Do you have an example?

There is a flaw in your logic here. You are applying 20/20 hindsight when you consider examples. You cannot disregard all the time wasted if every new theory were given equal merit. In some areas of science, most new theories turn out to be largely wrong.

[Sputnick]

Sorry Chris .. but I see your viewpoints as arcahic.

[Sputnick]

"The cosmologically important 'missing mass' problem may not be related to mass. It may be a missing the point problem ... ... the nature of farm from equilirbrium processess ... ... illusion of stability ... ..."
Gerrit Verschurr

"Galaxies and quasars are being found that form too early to be accounted for by the Big Bang models." (So of course instead of considering that they Big Bang never happened .. the models are altered to fit these new discoveries.)

[Chris Peterson]

"Galaxies and quasars are being found that form too early to be accounted for by the Big Bang models." (So of course instead of considering that they Big Bang never happened .. the models are altered to fit these new discoveries.)

Again, you misunderstand the scientific process. New observations result in the refinement of theories. Nobody is refusing to consider that the Big Bang didn't happen. Rather, the refined BB theories continue to do the best job of explaining observations. So they remain the dominant, but not only, theories.

Your example demonstrates that science works, not that it doesn't. A failure would be indicated by a refusal to incorporate new observations into theoretical models. That doesn't seem to be happening.

[Nereid]

Sorry Chris .. but I see your viewpoints as arcahic.

Let's see now ...

Sorry Sputnick ... but I see your viewpoints as uninformed.

Hmm ... doesn't help much, does it?

[Chris Peterson]

Sorry Chris .. but I see your viewpoints as arcahic.

See them how you will, they represent the reality of how science- as a discipline- in conducted. And I see no evidence at all to suggest that is changing, or is likely to change. If you deliberately choose to operate outside that system, it is unlikely you will be taken seriously. Again, that's just the reality of things. It isn't something any individual is likely to change.

[Nereid]

"The cosmologically important 'missing mass' problem may not be related to mass. It may be a missing the point problem ... ... the nature of farm from equilirbrium processess ... ... illusion of stability ... ..."
Gerrit Verschurr

"Galaxies and quasars are being found that form too early to be accounted for by the Big Bang models." (So of course instead of considering that they Big Bang never happened .. the models are altered to fit these new discoveries.)

Do you have a source for this?

At the very least you seem to have misquoted (I doubt that Verschurr - I mean Verschuur - wrote "the nature of farm from equilirbrium processess", for example), and may well have misconstrued his point by being too selective in what you chose to quote.

Also, I suspect that your choice of source is rather, archaic, shall we say?

Some registered member recently wrote this, elsewhere in this forum:

after a lot of research and discussion, when someone decides the assumption is an untruth, by allowing for the fact that advancing technology and discoveries may yet reveal the assumptions to be truths.

Perhaps "a lot of research and discussion" has taken place since Verschuur wrote those words, and thousands of astronomers have decided his assumptions are "untruths", and they did so "by allowing for the fact that advancing technology and discoveries may yet reveal the assumptions [cold Dark Matter] to be truths"?

[Sputnick]

Again, you misunderstand the scientific process. New observations result in the refinement of theories.

Refinement? "All things can be explained by fudging." (A quote overheard at a scientific conference).

Your example demonstrates that science works, not that it doesn't. A failure would be indicated by a refusal to incorporate new observations into theoretical models. That doesn't seem to be happening.

What doesn't seem to be happening is the increased acceptance of alternative theories supported by the new evidence, or the formulation of new theories to account for the evidence. The Big Bang is too unshakably programmed into too many scientific brains to overcome the mass of the concensus.

[Sputnick]

Sorry Chris .. but I see your viewpoints as arcahic.

Let's see now ...

Sorry Sputnick ... but I see your viewpoints as uninformed.

Hmm ... doesn't help much, does it?

Yes it does help .. with no disrespect meant I see more clearly your view as biased towards the concensus.

[Nereid]

[...]

Your example demonstrates that science works, not that it doesn't. A failure would be indicated by a refusal to incorporate new observations into theoretical models. That doesn't seem to be happening.

What doesn't seem to be happening is the increased acceptance of alternative theories supported by the new evidence,

What "alternative theories supported by the new evidence" are there, Sputnick?

or the formulation of new theories to account for the evidence.

Hmm ... let's see now ...

Do you know of any "new theories" that "account for the evidence" wrt the behaviour of very tiny things (like "atoms" and "electrons")?

I don't, and assuming you don't either, we may agree that no such new theories are being formulated.

The Big Bang is too unshakably programmed into too many scientific brains to overcome the mass of the concensus.

So is quantum mechanics "too unshakably programmed into too many scientific brains to overcome the mass of the concensus [sic]"?

[Sputnick]

"The cosmologically important 'missing mass' problem may not be related to mass. It may be a missing the point problem ... ... the nature of farm from equilirbrium processess ... ... illusion of stability ... ..."
Gerrit Verschurr

"Galaxies and quasars are being found that form too early to be accounted for by the Big Bang models." (So of course instead of considering that they Big Bang never happened .. the models are altered to fit these new discoveries.)

Do you have a source for this?

My source is Page 317 of the oft quoted book written by a mature lady with an "advanced degree in physics". I refuse to consider she might be fudging .. and if I am to be required to return to the book to discover her source then I will ask everyone in the forum to do likewise.

At the very least you seem to have misquoted (I doubt that Verschurr - I mean Verschuur - wrote "the nature of farm from equilirbrium processess", for example), and may well have misconstrued his point by being too selective in what you chose to quote.

Mere typographical error Nereid - "the nature of far-from-equilibrium processes"

Also, I suspect that your choice of source is rather, archaic, shall we say?

Which source do you consider archaic - the book or Verschuur? In either case both are very recent in the history of astronomy .. with nothing I have read in up to the minute (so to speak) monthly publications suggesting anything in the book is archaic. In fact - the continued failure after so many years to prove the existance of Dark Matter, or to prove the Big Bang, indicates perhaps that those perhaps archaic theories should be put on the back burner and other theories explored more earnestly .. with more resources. Of coure I know about the big Collider now in operation in Europe .. but what will it prove except that even more unknown particles exist .. perhaps a particle which assists gravity and makes Dark Matter unnecessary.

[Nereid]

"The cosmologically important 'missing mass' problem may not be related to mass. It may be a missing the point problem ... ... the nature of farm from equilirbrium processess ... ... illusion of stability ... ..."
Gerrit Verschurr

"Galaxies and quasars are being found that form too early to be accounted for by the Big Bang models." (So of course instead of considering that they Big Bang never happened .. the models are altered to fit these new discoveries.)

Do you have a source for this?

Page 317 of teh oft quoted bool written by a lady with an "advanced degree in physics". I refuse to consider she might be fudging.

Thanks, now I know where to check up on it.

And, if the author has such a degree, I expect there to be lots of footnotes and endnotes, containing a dense web of citations and references, so it should be easy to track down what Verschuur actually wrote, and when.

At the very least you seem to have misquoted (I doubt that Verschurr - I mean Verschuur - wrote "the nature of farm from equilirbrium processess", for example), and may well have misconstrued his point by being too selective in what you chose to quote.

Mere typographical error Nereid - "the nature of far-from-equilibrium processes"

Also, I suspect that your choice of source is rather, archaic, shall we say?

Which source - the book or Verschuur? In either case both are very recent in the history of astronomy, .. with nothing I have read in up to the minute (so to speak) monthly publications suggesting anything in the book is archaic.

Verschuur, and the book.

It seems the book was published in the early 1990s, which is quite archaic when it comes to dark matter research, and so the Verschuur quote would have to have been even earlier. Perhaps the easiest way to illustrate this is to point to the huge number of papers on gravitational lensing, by galaxies and clusters, since 1993, and the current consensus re consistency between the various methods for estimating mass (of galaxies and clusters). Although 'archaic' may be too strong a word for (spiral) galaxy CDM research up to ~1990, it is certainly apt wrt the Verschuur quote ("cosmologically important") ... WMAP was not even launched until 2001, yet it is the WMAP results which are perhaps the most powerful wrt CDM, cosmologically-speaking.

[Chris Peterson]

Refinement? "All things can be explained by fudging."

No, that's not what I mean. "Fudging" means making a change in theory without any justification other than making the theory fit observations. Milgrom's Modified Newtonian Dynamics is a good example of this. Changing and adding terms in models isn't necessarily fudging at all, especially when the terms have inherent physical meaning.

What doesn't seem to be happening is the increased acceptance of alternative theories supported by the new evidence, or the formulation of new theories to account for the evidence.

Of course they aren't gaining acceptance. That's because their proponents haven't demonstrated they work better than the existing standard cosmological model. It isn't enough for a theory to be supported by some observational evidence. It needs to be supported by all observational evidence, and it needs to be contradicted by none. Those requirements are met much better by the standard model than by any alternatives. That may change, but somebody is going to have to demonstrate that their alternative theory is better. Nobody has done that to the satisfaction of most scientists.